Marriage Equality

Many anti-gay activists are strangely obsessed with the idea that marriage equality might someday lead to legalized human-object marriage, whether that object is a car, a turtle, or the Eiffel Tower.

A Florida man has taken this obsession to a new level, filing a motion to intervene in the case challenging the state’s marriage equality ban, purporting to seek the right to marry his “porn filled Apple computer.”

The Broward/Palm Beach New Times provides this quote from the motion of Chris Sevier, which it notes is “Short on sound legal grounding (and even shorter on wit)”:

Recently, I purchased an Apple computer. The computer was sold to me without filters to block out pornography. I was not provided with any warning by Apple that pornography was highly addictive and could alter my reward cycle by the manufacturer. Over time, I began preferring sex with my computer over sex with real women. Naturally, I 'fell in love' with my computer and preferred having sex with it over all other persons or things, as a result of classic conditioning upon orgasm.

Unsurprisingly, Sevier’s motion was rejected last week by the clearly unamused Judge Robert L. Hinkle:

Chris Sevier has moved to intervene, apparently asserting he wishes to marry his computer. Perhaps the motion is satirical. Or perhaps it is only removed from reality. Either way, the motion has no place in this lawsuit. Mr. Sevier has alleged nothing that would support intervention.

In his motion in the Utah case, Sevier laid out his totally air-tight argument, warning that marriage equality and the “slippery slope” he warns will ensue will result in Americans “becoming salves of our glands, not slaves of virtue”:

Either (1) we will be reduced to a Nation that hypocritically enforces the equal protection and due process clause to suit the interest of the largest minority, which yields discrimination against the true minority classes of sexual orientation, causing hypocrisy to undermine foundation laws, yielding instability; (2) we will remain a Christian Nation that protects traditional marriage, as a relationship set apart because it has the potential of bearing life between two people, who are in a legally binding relationship, who have naturally corresponding sexual organs with the exclusive potential to produce children with DNA that matches theirs; which, of course, makes that relationship both scientifically and factually distinct from all others-religious aside; or (3) we will progress into a Nation that gives equal protection to all classes of sexual orientation allowing everyone to marrying anyone and anything to suit their appetite in the name of tolerance, equality, and love -becoming slaves of ourglands, not slaves of virtue. There is no other possible alternative.

The Iowa-based Religious Right group The Family Leader held a forum for Republican US Senate candidates on Friday, at which the group’s view that “God instituted government” figured heavily. In fact, nearly every candidate at the debate vowed that if they were to be elected to the Senate they would block federal judicial nominees who do not follow what they perceive as “natural law” or a “biblical view of justice.”

Bob Vander Plaats, head of The Family Leader, opened the forum by declaring, “At The Family Leader, we believe God has three institutions: It would be the church, the family, and government.”

He warned that policies such as legal abortion and marriage equality would cause God to cease blessing the country. “As we have a culture that runs further and further from God’s principles, His precepts, from God’s heart, it’s only natural consequences that we’re going to suffer,” he said.

“You cannot run away from the heart of God and expect God to bless the country," he concluded.

Several of the candidates echoed this theme during the forum. When moderator Erick Erickson, the right-wing pundit, asked the candidates what criteria they would look for in confirming federal judges, three out of four said they would demand faith in God or adherence to “natural law.”

Sam Clovis, a college professor and retired Air Force colonel, answered that he has “a very firm litmus test” on judges: “Can that judge…explain to me natural law and natural rights?”

Joni Ernst, who is currently a state senator, agreed, adding that federal judges should understand that the Constitution and all of our laws “did come from God” and that senators should “make sure that any decisions that they have made in the past are decisions that fit within that criteria.”

Former federal prosecutor Matt Whitaker argued that neither Clovis’ nor Ernst’s answer had gone “far enough.” He said that he would demand that federal judicial nominees be “people of faith” and “have a biblical view of justice.”

“As long as they have that worldview, then they’ll be a good judge,” he said. “And if they have a secular worldview, where this is all we have here on earth, then I’m going to be very concerned about how they judge.”

Heritage Foundation fellow Ryan T. Anderson, the anti-marriage-equality movement’s new young voice, claimed in an interview with the LDS Church-owned KSL TV in Salt Lake City, that banning marriage equality “take[s] nothing away from anyone” and “in no way infringes upon the liberty of any American to live and to love how they choose to.”

Anderson claims that in a “live and let live society,” LGBT people would not have marriage rights, but would receive marriage benefits from their employers if their employers chose.

KSL: As you lay out your arguments, many people may be unmoved because it seems like you aren’t giving homosexuals the opportunity for true fulfillment, that society is justifying sacrificing some people’s fulfillment at the sake of others. What is your response to that?

RA: Marriage laws take nothing away from anyone. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex can live with each other and love each other. If their house of worship recognizes same-sex marriage, they can have a wedding there. If their business wants to give them marriage benefits, the business can. That’s very much a live and let live society. What’s at stake with the redefinition of marriage is: will the law redefine what marriage is and then force every community, every religious community, except for the four walls of a church, every business community, into treating the same-sex relationship as if it’s a marriage, even when it violates their beliefs about marriage? But defining marriage as between a man and a woman so that as many children as possible have a mother and a father in no way infringes upon the liberty of any American to live and to love how they choose to.

Speaking with Phyllis Schlafly on Eagle Forum Live this weekend, Iowa talk show host Steve Deace implied that same-sex couples who want to get married are like people who want to be able to fly.

Responding to a caller who asked what he should say to a friend who says “it’s not government’s job to legislate morality,” Deace responded that the friend has “bought into some postmodern thinking” where he doesn’t want to impose his idea of what’s “wrong and icky” on other people.

Deace compared this to fighting the law of gravity, implying that a gay person who wants to get married is like someone who jumps off a skyscraper because they think they can fly.

“I mean, someone might think, I have the right to fly and I’d love to fly and I have a desire to fly and I even found a judge that gave me a piece of paper that told me I have the right to fly,” he said. “But when I fling myself off the top of a skyscraper, I run smack-dab into the law of gravity.”

“It didn’t change because some judge said so,” he added.

Caller: I’ve got a buddy who’s semi-liberal and he says, his main premise is that it’s not government’s job to legislate morality. And I was wondering what you’ve got to say about that.

Schlafly: Well, practically ever law is legislating morality.

Deace: Phyllis is correct. Everything is morality. That’s a false objection. Question him further to find exactly out what that means. And I’m telling you, what I’m 99 percent positive that it will mean is that he’s bought into some postmodern thinking that says, ‘Well, yeah, I think this stuff is wrong and icky for me but I can’t impose my value system on somebody else.’

But of course, that’s a very slippery slope as well. I mean, someone might think, I have the right to fly and I’d love to fly and I have a desire to fly and I even found a judge that gave me a piece of paper that told me I have the right to fly. But when I fling myself off the top of a skyscraper, I run smack-dab into the law of gravity. It didn’t change because some judge said so. It still exists. So, chances are that’s a false objection from your friend because he’s bought into some postmodern thinking about over-judgementalism.

In a conference call in February about Arizona’s proposed “right to discriminate" bill, National Organization For Marriage president Brian Brown counseled fellow Religious Right activists to turn accusations of anti-gay discrimination around and accuse gay rights activists of “anti-religious” and “anti-Christian bigotry.”

Noting that opponents of Arizona’s bill – which was later vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer – pointed out its similarities to Jim Crow laws, Brown said, “in fact, it’s the reverse” and that gay rights opponents are the ones facing systematic discrimination.

He advised the activists on the call to claim that opponents of gay rights are the real victims: “So, when they bring up discrimination, we need to turn it on its head and say, this is about anti-religious, specifically in some cases, anti-Christian religious bigotry, and there’s no place for this in this country. The discrimination is there, but right now what’s happening is the discrimination is coming from those that want to punish, repress and marginalize individuals and organizations that stand up for their religious beliefs.”

Whether it’s being forced to photograph a ceremony that you don’t agree with, forced to create a same-sex marriage wedding cake, whatever it is, that’s a very different thing than saying this is somehow Jim Crow all over again. In fact, it’s the reverse. What proponents of same-sex marriage are attempting to do is to coerce Americans to leave their faith at the door when they enter the public square, leave their faith at the door if they own a business.

…

So, when they bring up discrimination, we need to turn it on its head and say, this is about anti-religious, specifically in some cases, anti-Christian religious bigotry, and there’s no place for this in this country. The discrimination is there, but right now what’s happening is the discrimination is coming from those that want to punish, repress and marginalize individuals and organizations that stand up for their religious beliefs.

And what they’re trying to do is to constrain religious liberty to a new term: freedom of worship. Well, our founders didn’t die and come here for freedom of worship, they came here for religious liberty, to practice in the public square, not only within their houses of worship what they believed, but to go out into the community and act on it. And this is one of the important points when we debate this, is to not accept this new language of quote-unquote ‘freedom of worship.’ We believe in religious liberty, we believe in freedom of conscience. We don’t accept the idea that people should be punished in the public square for trying to live out the Gospel call.

“Moreover, what happened to Brendan Eich functions as a metaphor for life,” Allen muses. “In the same way that the founder of Mozilla was forced out of his own company, the homofascists, liberals and secularists also want to dethrone God from the universe he founded.”

If someone donates $100 or more in support or opposition to a ballot initiative in California, state law requires the disclosure of your full name, occupation and employer. The LA Times published an on-line, searchable database in 2008 with the names and information of those who contributed to the Prop 8 referendum. Armed with this information, militant members of the Al-’Gay’da and Lezbollah terrorist networks utilized Google Maps and produced/published maps indicating where all of the Prop 8 supporters lived and worked. Almost immediately, the supporters of natural marriage found themselves in the crosshairs of an angry mob of homofascist enemies of freedom.

So, whenever liberals argue in favor of legislation mandating the disclosure of the identities of contributors to political issues or candidates, now we know why. It’s not really about financial transparency or the integrity of the democratic process. It’s so they can target, intimidate and launch reprisals against those with whom they disagree. All dissent must be silenced by the homosexual Taliban.

…

The supporters of Prop 8 have paid a very steep price for defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and very few homosexual activists have ever disavowed the crimes that the homosexual Sharia supporters have perpetrated. Nevertheless, these brave individuals are to be commended for standing up for the truth despite the onslaught of attacks. Liberty will require many more people to do the same. Brendan Eich was only latest victim of the virulent Al-’Gay’da terrorists, and we too will need to be a people of courage and conviction if we ever hope to stem the tide of these sin-obsessed, sodomy-fixated destroyers of morality and freedom.

Moreover, what happened to Brendan Eich functions as a metaphor for life. In the same way that the founder of Mozilla was forced out of his own company, the homofascists, liberals and secularists also want to dethrone God from the universe he founded. Of course, the Bible confirms the fact that they will ultimately fail, but in the meantime that doesn’t thwart them from all their raging and vain plotting (Psalm 2:1; Acts 4:25).

An estimated 35,000 people contributed to the Prop 8 effort. That means the vile, militant supporters of sin-based sodomy “marriage,” have got a lot of work ahead of them. Their Islamofascist-style purge of all defenders of morality has only just begun.

For the homo-terrorists, Brendan Eich is “one down” – only 34, 999 more to go!

The anti-gay activist was even further dispirited by the charity World Vision’s decision – since reversed – to recognize the marriages of its gay employees. Speaking with talk show host Janet Mefferd yesterday, LaBarbera told evangelicals that you can’t “call yourself a Christian” and also support “redefining marriage to accommodate a sexual sin.”

When Mefferd asked him whether he thought controversies like the one over World Vision’s treatment of gay employees would become more common, LaBarbera responded, “Yeah, I think a lot of evangelicals are going to sell out.”

“I’m afraid were going to see evangelicals either opting out of this issue entirely…or, even worse than that, we’re going to see evangelicals getting behind the idea of natural gay identity and even so-called homosexual marriage,” he said.

“And that’s a sad thing,” he continued, “because if you’re going to call yourself a Christian, don’t get behind non-Christian or anti-Christian ideas. Struggling with homosexuality is one thing – many people struggle with sins – but proudly defending homosexuality and even redefining marriage to accommodate a sexual sin is quite another.”

In a talk in Salt Lake City this weekend, Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation claimed that same-sex marriage is “an elite luxury good bought for on the backs of the poor.”

He made the comment while discussing U.S. v. Windsor, in which Edith Windsor argued successfully that she was unjustly forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes after her wife’s death because DOMA prevented the government from recognizing their marriage. Anderson absurdly claimed that the media suppressed the facts of the case, and insisted that the solution to Windsor’s problem was simply to repeal the estate tax.

He continued in the same vein, claiming that free markets, rather than nondiscrimination measures, will protect LGBT people from employment and housing discrimination.

Anderson warned that measures protecting LGBT people from housing and employment discrimination will oppress conservatives: “Too often, the nondiscrimination laws are just used as a way of discriminating against those who hold traditional views about marriage.”

“I think, to a certain extent, if you want to protect housing and employment for any person, encourage free markets,” he continued. “Employers want the best employees, regardless of their sexual attractions. A landlord wants the best tenants, regardless of their sexual attractions. It wouldn’t be, in the long run, for a business, profitable to be discriminating against good employees for no reason whatsoever.”

But Anderson wasn’t just concerned with public policy. Later in the talk, an audience member asked about pro-gay “subliminal messaging” in pop culture. “The television show Glee has done just as much to corrupt a young generation about marriage as anything the Supreme Court has done,” he responded.

One of the downsides of recording daily radio segments for Religious Right activists like Matt Barber and Mat Staver is that they often record several at a time with plans to air them on some future date. Normally, that is not a problem, but sometimes they record segments about an issue that has changed dramatically between the time of the recording and the time of the airing, as was the case with today's broadcast in which they furiously attacked the Christian charity World Vision for announcing that legally married gay Christians would be welcome in the organization.

World Vision quickly reversed course but Barber and Staver had already recorded today's commentary in which Barber said the organization had clearly fallen under Satan's deception on the issue of gay marriage:

More of a concern than their compromising their values is that they're compromising non-negotiable Biblical truth and Biblical principles.

The President of World Vision USA, Richard Stearns, has said in the past quote 'no one ever died of gay marriage.' Well, I would introduce him to the plague of AIDS.

...

The spiritual warfare is palpable, Mat. And the Father of Lies is using this issue to deceive the multitudes and many within the church are falling under his deception; World Vision is one organization that has clearly fallen under his deception.

Of all the right-wing reactions to Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s quiet step back from the marriage equality debate, Scott Lively’s might just take the cake.

In a post on Matt Barber’s BarbWire today, Lively writes that although Cathy has not yet taken the “Mark of the Beast,” his decision to back out of the gay marriage debate “suggests he might be willing to take it if faced with that choice.”

“I am convinced that God is using the homosexual issue as a test of believers all over the world,” Lively continues. “What would it profit Mr. Cathy to gain the whole world (or a few more restaurants on college campuses), if his compromise of Biblical truth today makes him less able to resist the real Mark of the Beast tomorrow?”

“In my mind’s eye I used to see the Mark of the Beast as a black dot on the back of the hand,” he concludes. “Now it looks more like a Chik Fil A [sic] sandwich. I’ll never buy another one, and I hope you won’t either.”

Dan Cathy Takes the Mark of the Beast

That headline is not true. Dan Cathy of Chick Fil A has not (to my knowledge) taken the Mark of the Beast. Yet he has done something that suggests he might be willing to take it if faced with that choice, in the same way that answering a poll is an indication of how a person will vote in an election. As the Bible says in Luke 16:10, “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.”

…

I am convinced that God is using the homosexual issue as a test of believers all over the world. It’s like the “stress test” the central bankers are using to forecast which banks would fail in the event of an economic collapse. Except in this case God is testing us for what we will do in the coming moral and spiritual collapse. The Bible hasn’t changed, only the culture has changed, and believers are being “stress tested” to see whether they stand with Him or with the world on the things He says are true but which the world is pressing very hard to declare false.

…

The good thing about a stress test is that it gives people an opportunity to change their ways (repent) before the final exam or the big crash. God doesn’t care about Chick Fil A’s profit margins if they come at the expense of Dan Cathy’s willingness to stand up for the truth under pressure. What would it profit Mr. Cathy to gain the whole world (or a few more restaurants on college campuses), if his compromise of Biblical truth today makes him less able to resist the real Mark of the Beast tomorrow?

I’m not saying that Dan Cathy isn’t saved, but he has certainly failed the stress test, and failed the Bible-believing Christian remnant everywhere, by surrendering to the “gay” bullies. How long before we see Chick Fil A running “gay”-friendly commercials as penance for Cathy‘s “homophobia?”

…

There are varying theological views about what the Mark of the Beast is, or will be, and which ones among us will face that choice of taking or rejecting it. Nevertheless, it stands as a symbol to all Christians everywhere as the choice for or against Christ when the sword is on your neck and to choose Christ means to die saved, or live condemned to hell. The stress test of pressure from “gay” bullies is not life or death, but it is an indicator of whether you have the faith and courage to choose Him over the things of this world. In my mind’s eye I used to see the Mark of the Beast as a black dot on the back of the hand. Now it looks more like a Chik Fil A sandwich. I’ll never buy another one, and I hope you won’t either.

In an interview with VCY America’s Crosstalk program yesterday, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly declared that she was “very disappointed in the leadership of all the churches” and “positively amazed” that neither politicians nor pastors are voicing “any objection” to a recent spate of marriage equality rulings in the courts.

“I think everyone in leadership is to blame for not speaking up against this whole series of judges who are knocking down the constitutional provisions who were voted by the people of their state to say that marriage is a man and a woman,” Schlafly said. “Where are they? Where are the spokesmen?”

Stu Burguiere sat in for Glenn Beck on last night's television program where he interviewed Rabbi Daniel Lapin ostensibly about reports that a gay couple was going to sue the Church of England for the right to get married in the church.

Lapin said that instances like this, as well as the various cases that have occurred in the United States, are not about equal rights at all but rather are part of an all-out effort to destroy Judeo-Christian values and the Bible.

"This is a flagrant attempt to censor, undermine, and ultimately obliterate Christianity," Lapin said. "That's the purpose of this."

Lapin went on to say that words like "equality" and "fairness" are meaningless terms that are embraced by tyrannical governments in order to work up a docile population into destroying its own freedom:

Last week, Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he was not going to be weighing in publicly on the issue of marriage equality any longer, saying he had learned from his mistakes when his set off a controversy over the issue back in 2012.

Cathy's new position is not sitting well with Bryan Fischer or Peter LaBarbera, who accused him of selling out the entire anti-gay movement.

"For him now to say I'm going to pull back," fumed LaBarbera, "seems to be just a complete sell out."

LaBarbera went on to lament that gay activists are playing hardball while anti-gay Christians are playing tee-ball "and we're getting wiped out and every time a leader goes silent, you know, he's hurting the cause."

"Now I'm wondering," LaBarbera added, "did Dan Cathy do more harm than good in this whole thing?"

Fred Phelps was the founder and patriarch of Westboro Baptist Church, which he and his family members used as a base for attention-grabbing protests at funerals of people who had died from AIDS, at gay-rights rallies and marches, at churches he deemed insufficiently anti-gay, and later at the funerals of American soldiers (based on the “logic” that America itself is vile and hated by God for its growing acceptance of LGBT people).

It is hard to know how much pain Phelps caused individual LGBT people and their families, particularly young people struggling with their sexuality and/or faith, with his denunciations. But he certainly failed in his mission to frighten or harass Americans away from support for equality. In fact he may have accelerated the trend by putting such an unappealing face on anti-gay bigotry that many American Christians wanted nothing to do with him.

Phelps did allow other anti-gay leaders to posture that he was the face of hatred, not them. But the substance of their message to gay people is similar: repent or be damned – it’s just that Phelps framed it as “God hates fags” while people like Bryan Fischer say God loves them and wants them to abandon their demonic lifestyle. They may have disagreed on rhetorical strategy, but they shared their hostility to an America in which LGBT people are treated equally under the law. In the end, other anti-gay religious leaders, even ones who distanced themselves from Phelps’s rhetoric, were tainted by him.

The Phelps family has inspired some truly creative activism by pro-equality activists, who used their appearances to raise funds for progressive organizations, and who created visually striking walls of “angels” to keep Phelps family protesters out of view of grieving family members.

Fred Phelps’s decision to protest military funerals may have accomplished the most in terms of helping more Americans view anti-gay bigotry as broadly un-American. He may have left exactly the legacy he didn’t want.

The National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown and Focus on the Family vice president Tim Goeglein were the guests on a webinar last week hosted by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, in which they discussed the need for young “heroes” to bring the anti-marriage equality cause to younger generations.

The two also discussed the supposed threat to religious liberty put forward by what Goeglein called “the political agenda of organized homosexuals.”

“One of the things that perhaps Christians and Jews and others have not fully internalized is that the political agenda of organized homosexuals in America is one of the great threats to our religious liberty,” Goeglein said.

He added that gay rights are bringing about “a new era of intolerance against those of us who are men and women of faith.”

Bryan Fischer is not impressed by polls showing continually increasing support for marriage equality, especially among young people who identify as Republicans, telling his radio audience that gay marriage is winning right now only because liberals and the media have brainwashed Americans into thinking that people who oppose it are bigots.

Americans don't want pollsters to think they are bigots when asked their opinion on the issue, Fischer asserted, so they just say that they support in order to tell the pollster what he or she wants to hear.

But while marriage equality is winning at the moment, it will not win in the end because, as Fischer said, "the truth never goes out of style":

In a conversation with conservative bloggers at CPAC last week, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus promised that he would be “as strong on these social issues” – including choice and marriage equality – as a pastor “on Sunday morning.”

In the wide-ranging conversation, audio of which was posted by LifeSiteNews, Priebus assured his audience that autopsy reports aside, the GOP will not moderate or shy away from its anti-choice or anti-gay stances…while at the same time saying he wasn’t going to be “walking around down the street” proclaiming his opposition to marriage equality.

He said that his attendance at the March for Life this year was a “wake-up call” that “maybe we need to start reminding people about the core positions of our party more.”

"We're a pro-life party and I'm not shying away from that at all," he added.

He also said that he tells pastors that “church can’t just be vanilla ice cream and cotton candy on Sunday morning either, and that there’s joint responsibility in talking about issues of faith.”

“I tell a lot of pastors sometimes, in groups like this, I say, ‘Listen, I got a deal for you. I’ll be as strong on these social issues as you’re willing to be on Sunday morning. How about that deal?’”

When an attendee asked him if he considers “opposition to gay marriage still to be a core party issue,” Priebus responded that it was but implied that Republicans should avoid talking about it to much.

“Yeah, I mean, we’re a party that believes that marriage ought to be between one man and one woman, that’s our party platform, it’s a position that I’ve never backed away from,” he said. “What I have said, though, is that we need to treat each other with grace and dignity and respect. And that’s not code language, it comes out of the New Testament. So there should be no confusion about where we stand.”

When the questioner asked if opposition to marriage equality was “something that you want to be reminding people of more,” Priebus answered: “Well, I mean, I’m not like walking around down the street, but if someone wants to ask me like you did, I didn’t dance for you. I mean, I answered the question head-on and very clear.”

Massachusetts pastor Scott Lively joined Dublin radio host Niall Boylan yesterday to discuss Uganda’s passage of a harsh new anti-gay law. The two engaged in an hour-long shouting match, in which Lively accused the gay community of a Marxist plot to “destroy civilization,” insisted that women should be subservient to their husbands, and claimed that marriage equality in Ireland would lead to legalized pedophilia within five years.

Early in the interview, Boylan asked Lively if he was “accusing the gay community of trying to destroy family values,” to which Lively replied, “I am.”

Lively faulted the gay rights movement following the Stonewall riot for shifting its focus “from asking for tolerance to demanding the ability and power to transform all of society in their own image and to take their model of sexual anarchy into the mainstream,” which he described as part of a Marxist plot to “break down the nuclear family” and with the purpose of destroying society.

Later in the interview, Lively blamed the high divorce rate among heterosexuals on the gay rights movement: “That’s because, in the 1960s, the gay model of sexual anarchy was introduced and the heterosexuals adopted the gay model.”

Boylan: You’re accusing the gay community of trying to destroy family values, is that what you’re trying to say?

Lively: I am. And you know, this comes out of…this is straight out of Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfurt school of cultural Marxists. Marxism has always been about destroying civilization so they can rebuild on the ashes their utopian socialist society, which is just a fantasy. But they had an actual strategy, and that strategy was in three parts. And the primary part was to break down the nuclear family. And in the United States, where they implemented this, that’s what they taught.

Now, the original gay movement in the U.S., back that was getting started in the late 1940s, their original goal, articulated by Dale Jennings of the Mattachine Society was quote, ‘The right to be left alone.’ I always supported that. In 1968, with the Stonewall riot on Christopher Street in New York City, they shifted their focus from tolerance, from asking for tolerance, to demanding the ability and the power to transform all of society in their own image and to take their model of sexual anarchy into the mainstream.

…

The idea that heterosexuals now have a dramatically higher divorce rate, that’s true. That’s because, in the 1960s, the gay model of sexual anarchy was introduced and the heterosexuals adopted the gay model. That’s what’s going on.

Later in the interview, Lively said that “if we actually followed what God instructed us to do,” we wouldn’t have “the problems that we’re dealing with in our society today.” When Boylan asked him if that included the biblical view that women should be subservient to their husbands, Lively responded, “Well, I believe that God did create and order. That Christ is the head of the man, the man is the head of the wife, and families that follow that model have beautiful, wonderful lives.”

When pressed, he clarified, “The Biblical model of men and women, husbands and wives, is not master and servant. It’s president and vice president.”

Lively: I believe the Bible, I live by the Bible, I believe that the problems that we’re dealing with in our society today, if we actually followed what God instructed us to do, we wouldn’t have these problems.

Boylan: So, if men turned around and believed that women were subservient, for example, because that’s what the Bible tells men to believe. Do you think we’d have a good society?

Lively: Well, I believe that God did create and order. That Christ is the head of the man, the man is the head of the wife, and families that follow that model have beautiful, wonderful lives.

Boylan: How do you think modern society would work? So, do you think modern society could still work like that? With women of this world who now have, thankfully, careers and rights and they can vote. You believe that they should still be subservient to men?

Lively: See, once again, you’re talking about terminology. When I say ‘submission,’ I don’t mean subservience. The Biblical model of men and women, husbands and wives, is not master and servant. It’s president and vice president. Right? That’s how it works.

Near the end of the interview, Lively launched into the slippery slope argument that legalizing marriage equality will “open the door to lots of other deviant sexual conduct,” like “polygamy, polyamory, incest, pederasty, even pedophilia.”

“You’re not suggesting that if we vote yes for same-sex marriage that in 20 years’ time the world will become so liberal that we will allow people to have sex and marry twelve-year-olds,” Boylan said.

“It won’t be twenty years, it will be five years,” Lively responded.

Lively apparently hasn’t noticed that ten years after his home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, pedophilia is still illegal.

Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, is a little upset about Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s decision last night to veto a bill that would have expanded the ability of business owners to discriminate against LGBT people and others.

“Tyranny is on the march,” Phillips declares in a piece on the TPN website that he also emailed to members of the group, adding that business owners who are not allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians are “slaves” to the “great liberal state,” aided by “French Republicans” like Brewer.

“The left and the homosexual lobby are both pushing slavery using the Orwellian concepts of ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusiveness,’” he writes.

Phillips then wonders if business owners will be forced to “create a cake for a homosexual wedding that has a giant phallic symbol on it,” “create pastries for a homosexual wedding in the shape of genitallia [sic],” or “photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior.”

The left and the homosexual lobby in America went into overdrive to kill this bill. Conservatives rallied for this bill and Governor Brewer opted for cowardice instead of courage.

Why is this bill so important and what did it mean for not only Arizona but America?
The issue can be boiled down to one word: Freedom.

A free man or woman controls their labor. A slave has no control over their labor. A free man or woman decides who they will work for and under what conditions. The slave cannot.

The left and the homosexual lobby are both pushing slavery using the Orwellian concepts of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness.”
…

Immediately the left and the homosexual lobby went into high dudgeon. Arizona’s SB1062 must be defeated because Americans really are no longer free and must be forced to serve the great liberal state, regardless of their beliefs.

The storm rose against Arizona and Jan Brewer proved she was no Ronald Reagan. She has an honored place in the ranks of the French Republicans.

…

The left loves to come up with absurd hypotheticals to scream that there must be compliance with their fascism, so how about a couple from our side.

Should a devote baker be required to create a cake for a homosexual wedding that has a giant phallic symbol on it or should a baker be required to create pastries for a homosexual wedding in the shape of genitallia [sic]? Or should a photographer be required to photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior? Would they force a Jewish photographer to work a Klan or Nazi event? How about forcing a Muslim caterer to work a pork barbeque dinner?

...

SB1062 is a bigger story than simply the story of a cowardly governor who has no core beliefs.
SB1062 is the story of liberalism at work in America.

Liberalism is the paranoid belief that leftists have that somewhere, someone may be thinking for themselves. It is the tyrannical belief that no deviation in belief is allowed from the decreed orthodoxy.